This is one Protestant claim against Catholicism; that our crosses have an image of Jesus on it, and He has a robe on him - therefore, our cross is supposedly incorrect and should not be recognized. Notice that their crosses do not have any image of Jesus. Was Jesus naked on the cross?
What is a good response to this Protestant objection?

Actually Jesus is almost always pictured on the cross in a loincloth, not a robe. Even by reformation artists.

Matt 27:28 and Luke 10:30 state that the Roman soldiers "stripped" Jesus prior to the crucifixion. That may mean they took away all of his clothing, including his loin cloth. But not necessarily.

John 21:7 records another man who was stripped:

"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, 'It is the Lord.' So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea."

It is unlikely that Simon Peter was working completely in the nude. After all, there's a lot of sharp stuff on a fishing boat (ouch!). But a man wearing only a loincloth was until very recently considered to be naked.

If you ever get the opportunity, watch "The King and I" (yes the Yul Brenner film). When Anna and her son (proper English persons) first arrive at the seaport in Siam, they are shocked to see the dock workers in loincloths. The son says "look mommy, they're naked!" Well of course they were not naked in the 21st century sense of the word, but to 19th century sensibilities they were.

Now, after saying all this, I admit it is certainly possible that Jesus was completely naked on the cross. But I would not expect Him to be pictured that way on a crucifix, as it could be a stumbling block for adolescents and those adults with tender sensibilities. And we all know what awaits those who provide stumbling blocks! (cf Matthew 18:7)

Though we all understand the possible theological significance of nakedness in relation to recovering the innocence of mankind, I think it is downright silly to imply that the Catholic Church is wrong because most Catholic artists choose to put a loin cloth on the Savior. After all, there has never been a statement of Catholic doctrine about naked crucifixion one way or the other.

If these are the petty depths to which Protestants will sink to find fault with Catholicism, I feel truly sorry for them.

My understanding is that the the general Roman policy was to strip their crucified prisoners entirely nude, but that out of respect for Jewish sensibilities this was modified in Judea and the crucified were allowed to keep their loincloths. I'm sorry that I can't give a source for this, as it was a long time ago that I read it.

This is one Protestant claim against Catholicism; that our crosses have an image of Jesus on it, and He has a robe on him - therefore, our cross is supposedly incorrect and should not be recognized. Notice that their crosses do not have any image of Jesus. Was Jesus naked on the cross?
What is a good response to this Protestant objection?

## To His executioners He wold have been just another Jewish gallowsbird. There's no reason to suppose He would have been treated any better than other.

It was a cruel, bloody, obscene, humiliating, slow, disgraceful, and shameful method of execution reserved for the dregs of society, such as slaves and those who were not Roman citzens. He was lucky not to have a bear set loose upon him, as happened to a robber crucified in the Colosseum in 90 or so.

Crucifixion was not decorous, tidy, bloodless, nice, hygienic. His Love for us, and His obedience to His Father, is nowhere more apparent than in His readiness to suffer so horrible & degrading a form of death. The Cross was an an obscenity and a scandal 1900 years ago - it still is. That is why its shamefulness and its glory should never be diluted.

I think He should be shown as He was, as nearly as we can know this. If people are shocked, that may do great good: for that is what He went through for us. Crucifixion was shocking, vile, disgraceful, senseless, when St. Paul preached a crucified Messiah: why should the Cross be sanitised now ?

If Christ Crucified could be preached by St. Paul, when crucifixion was still a fate with which low-class Christians might meet - it was not abolished until 315 - it is impossible to understand why we today should not hear and see an equally uncomfortable Gospel. A prettified, sanitised, inoffensive Gospel is no Gospel at all. ##

I don't think it really matters. I just wanted a response to a Protestant objection. It states that he definately was naked and the RC Cross has a statue of him "covered", so it is incorrect and wrong to have one of these crosses. I wished for advice on how to respond to this, I didn't say that Jesus's nakedness (or not) really mattered.